I dunno... do we know how many on the right are irritated by the tenor of political discourse - given that partisanship at this moment helps their ballots? For all of my appreciation of the idea that the rally was to call for reasonable discourse, does anyone doubt the crowd was majority liberal, and judging by the signs/hats/etc a fair chunk were also anti-Tea Party? Was there any indication that conservatives attended the rally, in any number (read an article or an op-ed or anything)?

I would love for conservatives to be as concerned about our discourse, but I'm not certain that if the tables were turned and we were looking at a Democratic takeover of the House after a Republican shutout in the last election, that we wouldn't be fighting tooth and nail, too.

I guess I'm saying... I think this was a liberal rally that had potentially broader application, but was probably only really watched and listened to by the left._________________"Worse comes to worst, my people come first, but my tribe lives on every country on earth. Iíll do anything to protect them from hurt, the human race is what I serve." - Baba Brinkman

While I agree that those in attendance were to the left of the tea party (and the republicans), I don't believe that it's a situation of either liberal or conservative._________________Scire aliquid laus est, pudor est non discere velle
"It is laudable to know something, it is disgraceful to not want to learn"
~Seneca

Uh, yeah, it's just two articles. I thought the different angles were interesting, as well as the Rally To Restore Sanity being an interesting look at the liberal left in america in general. And yeah, I know it was the One Nation Rally recently, but the Daily Show is a more interesting starting point.

Neither interesting nor a look at the liberal left, but thanks for knowing nothing about US Politics again, Лебезятников.

Oh, attributing a differing opinion to lack of knowledge, how...dishonest. So I take it you're not interested in actually debating this time either._________________A cigarette is the perfect type of a perfect pleasure. It is exquisite, and it leaves one unsatisfied. What more can one want? ~Oscar Wilde, The Picture of Dorian Gray

I dunno... do we know how many on the right are irritated by the tenor of political discourse - given that partisanship at this moment helps their ballots? For all of my appreciation of the idea that the rally was to call for reasonable discourse, does anyone doubt the crowd was majority liberal, and judging by the signs/hats/etc a fair chunk were also anti-Tea Party? Was there any indication that conservatives attended the rally, in any number (read an article or an op-ed or anything)?

I would love for conservatives to be as concerned about our discourse, but I'm not certain that if the tables were turned and we were looking at a Democratic takeover of the House after a Republican shutout in the last election, that we wouldn't be fighting tooth and nail, too.

I guess I'm saying... I think this was a liberal rally that had potentially broader application, but was probably only really watched and listened to by the left.

The crux I think, is that it was political and at the same time tried not to be, which is only natural given it was hosted by two comedians. I think both articles sort of gets at this._________________A cigarette is the perfect type of a perfect pleasure. It is exquisite, and it leaves one unsatisfied. What more can one want? ~Oscar Wilde, The Picture of Dorian Gray

While I agree that those in attendance were to the left of the tea party (and the republicans), I don't believe that it's a situation of either liberal or conservative.

That's where I think it gets into political calculus. Not so much on the part of the organizers, but on the part of participants and observers. I'm not sure the rally was compelling to conservatives of most any stripe, because they have the most to gain from the type of political discourse the rally was decrying at the moment. We'll see how they feel - and how liberals feel - after the next time power shifts parties.

If there were no conservatives in attendance, though, it's a liberal rally whether by intent or happenstance._________________"Worse comes to worst, my people come first, but my tribe lives on every country on earth. Iíll do anything to protect them from hurt, the human race is what I serve." - Baba Brinkman

The absence of Tea Party is not evidence of MoveOn._________________Scire aliquid laus est, pudor est non discere velle
"It is laudable to know something, it is disgraceful to not want to learn"
~Seneca

... right. If we take the available evidence - such as signs, shirts, costumes, etc. - then we can assume there was a large contingent of liberals in attendance. What I asked for (twice now) was whether there was any evidence anyone's seen that there were conservatives in attendance? If you've got evidence (rather than maxims) to the contrary, I'm all ears. But if all of the available evidence suggests the rally attendees were mostly liberal... then we have to assume the rally attendees were mostly liberal. _________________"Worse comes to worst, my people come first, but my tribe lives on every country on earth. Iíll do anything to protect them from hurt, the human race is what I serve." - Baba Brinkman

I was trying to be cute, but my point is that you are committing a logical fallacy. It's irrelevant if there were no conservatives in attendance unless you believe that a person is either conservative or liberal. If you believe that, then fine -- you'd be correct with that set of definitions.

Most of the signs I've seen were mocking the tea party but not too many (none?) were supporting liberal candidates._________________Scire aliquid laus est, pudor est non discere velle
"It is laudable to know something, it is disgraceful to not want to learn"
~Seneca

I think we're talking about this issue on different levels. You appear to be talking about the philosophical slant of the rally and its attendants, which would be more complex than any one label. I think we agree there. I'm talking on the pragmatic level of elections and ridiculous news media. From that perspective, this was a liberal rally (possibly just to counter Beck), because I don't think that when push comes to shove the political landscape maintains the depth to view it as much else. I'd happily be proven wrong, though._________________"Worse comes to worst, my people come first, but my tribe lives on every country on earth. Iíll do anything to protect them from hurt, the human race is what I serve." - Baba Brinkman

From what little I read about the rally, the most numerous signs were those supporting pot legalization. Is that still considered a liberal hippie issue, or have enough conservatives/libertarians jumped on board that it's bipartisan?

i would guess mostly this was a rally of stewart and/or colbert fans, much as glenn beck's rally was mostly a rally of glenn beck fans. although i consider stewart to be quite even-handed in his choice of guests, and his manners in interviewing them, i suspect his audience skews liberal. i heard a while back that a large number of conservatives were watching colbert, and taking him seriously, but i'm not sure that's still true.

so i think the real question is, is the stewart/colbert fan base overwhelmingly liberal?_________________aka: neverscared!

The current discourse has skewed perceptions of political debate (i.e. what constitutes "liberal" commentary or news) by creating a false equivalence between opinion/propaganda and logic/facts. When the accuracy of statements is no longer called into question, the only determinant left is the quantity of commentary that supports a left-leaning position or a right-leaning position.

Thus, "studies show that abstinence only eduction is less effective at preventing STDs" becomes, by itself, positive evidence of liberal bias._________________All our final decisions are made in a state of mind that is not going to last. - Marky Mark Proust